• To: "'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 23:19:11 -0500
• In-reply-to: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306DF6353@HQ5>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306DF6353@HQ5>

On Wednesday 30 January 2002 05:13 pm, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> And that points directly to the problem:  a sharable
> framework of component definitions.  HTML didn't succeed
> because of the basis in SGML; it succeeded because
> of libWWW and the free Mosaic browser.  Had ANY SGML
> browser maker at that time given away their browser
> and source code prior to those two products becoming

EBT can very, very close to this...  but one of the things I've found 
(especially after looking back over the last 7 years or so) is that 
"almost did it" ain't good enough.

Too many good intentions, and the associated roads...

• References:
  • RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There isa meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Next by Date: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Previous by thread: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Next by thread: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread